A New Model Merges
Pastoral Care and Social Action
The Indispensable Church
What If Clergy Were Supported,
Not Paid?
China’s Dead Sea Scrolls:
An Ancient Case of
Contextual Christianity
Reggie McNeal:
Change the Church Scorecard
Sustainable spiritual collectives
The Economic Realities
of Church Planting
Becoming a fan of Jesus
A must read:
The New Conspirators by Tom Sine
How churches might face
the coming crises
The “No Adjective” Church
In the church as abbey:
Why rituals are important
The church as abbey

5 Ways Church Models
Can Be Helpful
Ten marks of the church-as-abbey
Our Church
About the author
About First Inning Press

October 21, 2009 • 9:30 pm

A New Model Merges
Pastoral Care and Social Action

I am speaking tomorrow at Duke Divinity School to
students in the Rural Ministry Colloquia, a monthly
gathering of students involved in, or interested in, rural
church ministry. I have been asked to tell our story of
how we started a community center, community music
school, and several other projects here in our small town
of 1300 people.
In addition to telling our story, I’m also going to share
some very quick thoughts about the role of small
churches in rural areas. I’ve been thinking a lot lately
about the theology and practice of pastoral care in a
missional church, and how that is different from
pastoral care in traditional churches. I think I’ve come
up with a least a few questions, if not fully-formed
answers. Here’s some of what I’ll share tomorrow:
•

Missional theology and praxis calls for
contextual, incarnational engagement with the
community. How does “the care of souls” fit
into the missio Dei and our part in it?

•

Why is pastoral care largely ignored in the ongoing conversations about the transformation of
the church?

•

Given the social structures of rural society, and
the aging populations of small town and rural
America, shouldn’t “the care of souls” be a part
of our intentional ministry, and not just an
afterthought during times of crisis?

•

Considering the rampant poverty, increased
alcohol and drug abuse problems, lower
educational levels, and other social issues
affecting rural areas, shouldn’t our care of
people also include care for the community, and
the transformation of communal issues?

I am also proposing tomorrow a new way to look at
pastoral care and social action (which is not a term I like,
but I can’t think of another more descriptive).
The typical pastoral care model is a dyad of both the
spiritual and psychological care of a person or family.
The typical “social gospel” model (or social action
model) is a dyad of spiritual and sociological
engagement with a community, or group in a
community.
I am proposing a new model that is a synthesis of both
pastoral care and social gospel — a triad of the spiritual,
psychological, and sociological concerns addressed by
both individual approaches to care, and communal
approaches to care.
In the Bible, salvation is often seen as coming to a
people, not just individuals. Certainly, the salvation of
Israel was not thought of as future, but as a present
reality that God could, and often did, provide. This does
not diminish the importance and necessity of a personal
response to Jesus’ call to “come and follow me” but
rather it broadens that call to include the salvation of
social systems and communities.
I believe that “the care of souls” is going to burst into
our theological imaginations in new and exciting ways.
Some of those will be that care will be more relational
and less educational; and, more contextual and less
general.
The “care of souls” will also fill the gaps in the social
fabric of rural communities who have lost much of their
social framework to chain stores, increased mobility, and
the loss of public spaces. I am convinced that we need to
see our communities, not just as potential additions to

our membership roles, but as “sheep without a
shepherd.”
Creating networks of caring, training spiritual directors,
offering healing solutions to intractable social problems
— these are some of the new ways in which pastoral
care in the missional church finds new expression. One
of the primary tasks of churches is to make meaning out
of life’s stages and events. By viewing our communities,
and the individuals and families within them, as in need
of Christian care, I believe we change the tone and effect
of what we are doing.
What do you think? How has your church, small or
large, had opportunity to express care both for
individuals and the entire community? How have you
brought about community transformation through “the
care of souls?” I’m really interested in gathering
examples of churches doing this because I think it’s the
next new awareness of the missional movement.

October 6, 2009 • 7:41 pm

The Indispensable Church

People don’t need to go to church.
At least that’s how the majority of people in America act.
Less than 18% of the population attends church on any
given Sunday. In the U.S. we are chasing downhill
Europe’s church attendance rate of 7%, and David Olson
predicts by 2020 we’ll be halfway there. And that is
precisely our problem: we’re stuck on Sunday morning
church attendance as both the measure of a church’s
health, and an indicator of a person’s spiritual life.
The question that church leaders need to ask now is not,
“How can we get more people to come to church?”
We’ve been asking that question since the numbers
started turning down in the 1970s. All our solutions
together haven’t turned the tide of declining church
attendance. Throw in all the megachurches, all the
church growth seminars, all the church marketing, the
millions spent on programs, and the kitchen sink, and
the result is the same: people continue to stay away from
church in droves.
The question we need to be asking is, “How can church
become indispensable to a community?” People don’t
come to church because church isn’t essential to their
lives. Church is a take-it-or-leave-it experience, and most
are leaving it.
Our challenge is to make our churches indispensable to
our communities. The well-worn, but telling question —
“If your church closed tomorrow, would anybody
notice?” — has been answered by millions of Americans
with a resounding “No.”

But, I am not advocating a return to “attractional
church” programs and activities, either.
Rather I am advocating the following:
•

Sunday morning worship isn’t the most
important thing we should be doing.

•

Missional isn’t missional until people outside
the church notice.

•

The unchurched will tell us how we can be
indispensable to them.

Those three ideas all reflect the need to change
perspectives from our self-congratulatory, selfvalidating point of view to an outsider point of view.
Here’s an example:
In North Carolina, Crossfire United Methodist Church
got started because one biker (the Harley riding kind)
had been befriended by a member of the dying
Moravian Falls United Methodist Church. When Alan
Rice, the UM district superintendent, showed up to close
Moravian Falls, Duncan Overrein showed up on his
Harley and wouldn’t leave until Alan promised him to
keep the church open.
But, the old church congregation was too small to
sustain the church, so the old Moravian Falls church
died and the new Crossfire UM Church was born in the
old church building. Now 110-plus people, bikers and
others, ride from 30-40 miles away each Sunday to come
to church.
But Sunday isn’t all they do, or even the most important
thing they do. They help each other. They repair houses,
fix cars, buy groceries, care for the sick, pray for their
brothers and sisters. Crossfire is buying an old
abandoned refrigerated warehouse as their new home.
Part of the refrigerated space they’ll rent out, but they
intend to start a beef aging business there, too.

The church has become indispensable to the community
of bikers and their friends and families. It’s there
because one pastor listened to one long-haired, do-rag
wearing biker who wanted a church for people like him.
Crossfire doesn’t have any problem with attendance,
except they’re outgrowing the old Moravian Falls
building. They don’t have any problem with wondering
how to get people to come. Instead they go into the
community to families in need, to those who are sick, to
brothers in jail, and they listen to them.
I want our church to become indispensable to our
community. I want us to touch more lives during the
week than we have bodies in the pews on Sunday. I
want people to ask us to stay in business because we’ve
made a difference in their lives.
I am repeatedly drawn to the Celtic Christian abbeys.
Those early monks built their monastic compound at the
crossroads, or next to a village. The abbey became the
center of the community. It became necessary for the
community’s survival because they fed people, cared for
the sick, gave shelter to the homeless, provided refuge
for the weary and wanted, and lived out the Gospel in
tangible and essential ministries.
What do you think? Is your church indispensable in
your community? Would anyone notice if your
congregation folded? What are you doing to become
indispensable to the people around you?

May 25, 2009 • 2:48 pm

What If Clergy Were Supported,
Not Paid?
In all the conversation about churches and change, one
particular topic seems to be the unmentioned gorilla in
the room — clergy pay.
By clergy pay, I mean what most of us had in mind
when we went to seminary — “I’ll get this great
theological education so I can work full-time at — and
get paid by — a church.” In other words, today
ministers have the same vocational formula as any other
professional — aspiration>education>employment=pay.
The evangelical world has also built a lot of expectation
into the idea that ministers should be paid. Church
planting is mostly built upon the idea that a church
planter has to grow a church to a sustainable level
financially, so that he or she can get paid. Julie Clawson
wrote about her experience in a failed church plant. The
reason for the failure? They didn’t gather enough people
to support them financially.
Frank Viola has created his own cottage industry by
railing against the idea of paid clergy in the church of
today. While I am grateful for my bimonthly paycheck
from the church where I serve, I’m not sure that Frank
doesn’t have a point, particularly regarding the future of
the church. Of course, bivocational pastors exist, but this
usually means a church can’t afford to pay the pastor
enough to be full-time, so he or she has to work to
supplement their income. This secondary job is just that
— a second job to make ends meet, not a fulfilling aspect
of a life’s calling. But I’m not talking about bivocational
versus fully-employed pastors here; I’m asking the basic
question — What if clergy were supported, not paid?

The Early Church Model
There is some precedent for my question. Of course, we
have to assume that in the early church, Peter and the
other apostles weren’t paid initially. We also have to
recognize that our idea of “pay” is culturally tied to our
own experience. I am sure that Peter and the other
apostles were “supported” by others as they ministered,
but that support probably took the form of meals,
lodging, clothing, and travel assistance. I doubt if they
received a regular stipend or “walking around” money,
but that’s speculation on my part. Paul, of course,
worked at tent-making in his early ministry, but later
received support from collections from other churches
“eager to share” with him. One reason for Paul’s support
later in his ministry was his house arrest, which made
working difficult, if not impossible.
The Plight of Newspaper Reporters
But, back to the practical aspect of clergy pay. Jeff Jarvis,
journalism professor and author of What Would Google
Do?, contends that reporters believe they should be paid
not because of the value they add, but because of the
inherent good that reporters do for society. He quotes
Robert Picard, a media economist, who sounds off about
reporters’ expectations for pay:
“Most [reporters] believe that what they do is so
intrinsically good and that they should be
compensated to do it even if it doesn’t produce
revenue.”
Picard’s quote might apply to
clergy, too. Most of us think we
are a necessary and valuable part
of the society in which we live. But
that argument could equally be
applied to doctors, lawyers,
butchers, and street-sweepers, all
of whom contribute to the overall
good of society. Neither reporters
nor clergy get a pass on the
“intrinsic good” argument, in my opinion.

The Buddhist Model
Actually, the purest form of clergy support I know of is
found in Buddhist countries.
I remember taking an early morning walk down Nathan
Road in Hong Kong several years ago. Nathan Road is
crammed with hundreds of shops, restaurants, night
spots, hotels, and other tourist attractions, but in the
early morning hours most are not open; their folding
metal security gates still locked down over shop
windows. Walking down the street from the Holiday
Inn, I encountered a Buddhist monk clothed in the
traditional red robes, carrying a bowl. In rural cultures,
Buddhist monks literally receive a meal in their bowls
from their supporters, who in turn receive “merit” from
supporting the monks. But, in Hong Kong the monk’s
begging bowl is often the recipient of cash, as it was on
the day I encountered the old monk. He stopped in front
of me and held out his bowl with his head bowed. I
found some Hong Kong dollars in my pocket, which I
deposited into his bowl. The old monk smiled at me,
bowed and then continued on down the street. I found
the whole exchange quite rewarding, and I felt like I had
received more than I had given the old monk.
Of course, I am not arguing that clergy, Christian or
Buddhist, don’t need some type of support. Even hermit
monks are beneficiaries of the support of the cloistered
monastery, which in turn receives support from the
outside world by selling its goods, which can range from
wine to cheese to jellies. Economics are economics
whether you have taken vows of poverty or not. In even
the most basic societies, there is usually some type of
economic exchange system of value given and received.
Support vs. Pay
But what if clergy were “supported” instead of paid?
How would that change things? Of course, there are
several models for clergy support stretching all the way
back to the Old Testament. The Levites, the tribe of
priests, were to be supported by the other 11 tribes.
When sacrificial offerings are described in the Old

Testament, there are instructions about what the priests
may take from the pot for their own sustenance. Of
course, by Jesus’ time in the first century, the religious
leaders were not only supported by Temple activities,
but were probably on the payroll of the empire, both
Jewish and Roman. But, my point is, intrinsic to the
priestly system was the idea that the priests would be
supported by the other members of the community. Just
because a system becomes corrupted, as it did by the
first century, doesn’t mean we can’t learn something
from God’s original intent.
In the early church, as I have already mentioned, I
believe the apostles were supported by the first
Christian communities. At the day of Pentecost, 3,000
came into the church, plus the number of followers of
Jesus after the resurrection was much greater than just
the apostles. Their families, friends, proteges, and
converts quickly formed a viable community. We know
this from Acts 6 where the church is large enough to
support widows, and sensitive enough to address a
problem of some widows not being supported. During
this discussion, the apostles argue that it’s not right for
them to leave the ministry of the Word to wait on tables.
The implication is that the apostles are being supported
in some form so that they are free to carry out their
apostolic ministry.
Paul also argues that “the workman is worthy of his
hire” in appealing for support. Thus, the idea of support
of special classes of God’s people in both Old and New
Testaments is not a new idea. But, is there a difference in
support versus being a paid professional?
The Monastic Model of Support
and How It Evolved
As the monastic movement developed, monasteries
became self-sufficient centers of trade and commerce.
Celtic Christian abbeys often carried on sheep and cattle
operations; agricultural crop cultivation; wine-making;
spinning and weaving; metal-working; and, all the
attendant activities to being a self-sustaining
community. Monasteries and abbeys that could not

become self-sufficient failed and disappeared. In
successful abbeys, monks and nuns enjoyed the benefits
of the goods and services produced by their community.
Of course, they were part of the production of those
goods and services, and not just the beneficiaries. They
worked at keeping the monastery running, while also
taking time to pray — hence the Latin phrase laborare et
orare, to work and to pray. The rhythm of their days
included fixed-hours for prayer (the daily office)
interspersed with hours in the fields, kitchen,
scriptorum, or weaving shop.
As European society developed during the Middle Ages
(about 1100-1400 A.D.) a new form of clergy support
emerged — the peasant-priest. The peasant-priest
usually received a small stipend, but usually not enough
to support himself, his assistants, and his “hearth-mate”
— a euphemism for his common-law wife. The peasantpriest was also allotted a “glebe” behind the manse
(housing was a form of support), and on this plot of land
he could raise crops to supplement his income. Perhaps
these were the earliest bivocational pastors, except the
second job they held down — farming — was really an
extension of their calling, and a modified form of the
“work-and-prayer” rhythm of monastic life. Except the
peasant-priest was on his own and his community
consisted of the congregation for whom he was the
ecclesiastical authority.
English society under Henry VIII and the Church of
England, carried the peasant-priest idea to a slightly
higher level — the manor priest. The lord of the manor
might offer a stipend to support a clergyman for the
private manor chapel. The manor chapel provided the
component of religious life to, not only the lord of the
manor and his esteemed family, but also to those who
worked on the manor as well. Seating in the chapel was
arranged to accentuate the position of the lord and his
relatives, but lord and laborer could theoretically
worship together. The stipend for this priest could vary,
and some chapels were highly desired positions. The
annual pastoral support could make a priest’s life very
comfortable, depending upon the generosity of his
benefaction. This model, the manorial chapel, is the
model that was transplanted to the American colonies,

and still thrived in the South particularly into the 20th
century. The benefits of the manor chapel included a
manse and a stipend. In the American South, that
translated into a parsonage and paycheck for the
preacher.
Clergy Life in The Modern Economy
In the 1970s, denominations and seminaries began to
assert that a pastor needed the ability to own his or her
own home in order to build their financial net worth.
Parsonages were sold, often to the pastors who lived in
them, and housing allowances were added to the
salaries of pastors. Now pastors’ families are an
indistinguishable part of the greater economy. We get
paid just like everyone else, rather than supported like
the Levites or the apostles.
But, of course, most of us live just like the rest of society,
too, myself included. We have two vehicles — a minivan
and a pickup truck — our own furniture, our own
mortgage, and our own home repair bills. Clergy
salaries have also risen to levels comparable to the
teaching or nursing professions, in many areas. But what
if clergy weren’t paid like everyone else? What if we
were supported at a basic level, then free like the old
peasant-priest, or monk to work to finish out our
support? And, what if this were an intentional decision
made by pastors and churches which could support fulltime ministers?
Steve Taylor’s church, Opawa Baptist Church in New
Zealand, is large enough to fully support its pastoral
staff, but they are all part-time. Taylor, author The Outof-Bounds Church, also teaches at a couple of
seminaries, and speaks and writes. Others, like Gordon
Atkinson, work part-time at their churches and write for
the balance of their income. Not exactly the glebe, but
closer than working at WalMart.
This combination of professions — clergy plus
something else — was common in the first millennium
of the church. Priests were also lawyers or academics,
not just pastors. The Society of Jesus, known as the

Jesuits, has produced a number of scholar-priests in the
history of their order. These scholar-priests worked at
both professions, but may not have been assigned
primarily to parish ministry.
Modern Examples of Clergy Support
But what would the consequences be if ministers were
supported, not paid, by churches? First, let’s look at the
type of support a small community could offer a clergy
person. Housing, which is the major expense of any
family, is probably the most obvious support. The
United Methodist Church still maintains a network of
clergy housing in conjunction with its itinerant ministry.
In a denomination where clergy know they are going to
be moved every 2-5 years, church-provided housing
makes sense. There are advantages and disadvantages to
this, and the UMC has procedures in place to that assure
a pastoral family has a decent place to live.
The argument for allowing clergy to buy their own
homes has been that home ownership is the primary
way to increase individual net worth. With the bursting
of the housing market bubble, this argument doesn’t
hold as much weight as it once did. Also, in a slow
economy, having to sell a home in one community in
order to accept the call to another church can be a
financial drain on a pastor’s family.
But, housing isn’t the only form clergy support could
take. Churches could also provide a vehicle for pastoral
use. I realize that this could be loaded with objections —
when is mileage personal and when is it ministryrelated? — but commercial enterprises do this all the
time, so there is a way through the accounting
complexities. After housing, owning and operating a
vehicle is probably the most expensive item a family
spends money for. Churches own buses and vans, why
not a car for the pastor?
Beyond the two most expensive items of house and car,
support could also come in other areas. For example, I
wear a black clerical robe for worship. The church
bought the robe for me, and it solves a world of

wardrobe problems. I do wear a suit to church, but the
robe keeps me and my clothing from being the center of
attention, or derision, as the case may be.
Food is another form of support churches previously
provided, and could provide again. Many 19th century
pastors were paid in chickens and vegetables for
performing weddings or other services. Not that we
want a return to the “here’s a chicken” economy, but
food could be provided in consultation with the pastor’s
family.
Benefits of Pastoral Support
Now and Into the Future
My point in all of this is simple — if churches were
involved in the support of their pastors, rather than in
paying them, a new sense of community might become
evident. I realize that all the examples I have given look
back to the past, and that “what is old is new again” is
old saying for a good reason. But, there are advantages
to supporting rather than paying a pastor, especially as
churches move into the future.
If churches had the ability to support a pastor by
providing housing or a car, the pastor’s salary could be
reduced by that amount. Frankly, I just as soon my
church own my house and car, because both of those are
expensive to acquire, own, and maintain. I would
happily take a salary reduction for my housing and car
allowance to make that trade. The bottom line for
churches in a shrinking economy is that it would take
less cash to operate the church, so church budgets could
be reduced.
I do believe that in the future, we are going to see more
models for ministry support based on multiple sources
of income, rather than just one. This applies to both
churches and pastors. Pastors will need marketable skills
so they can contribute to their own support, and
churches will need more revenue streams than the
giving of members to sustain themselves. Many
churches have already opened coffee shops, art galleries,
childcare centers, community development agencies,

and a host of other entrepreneurial enterprises. These
are very much like the old Celtic Christian abbeys which
ran multiple enterprises in order to become and remain
self-sufficient.
The question of the 21st century for pastors cannot be,
“Where can I find a church job to support me?” Rather,
the question is, “How can I find multiple sources of
support to undergird the ministry to which God has
called me?” Pastors and churches prepared to answer
that question creatively will thrive in the next 25-years, I
am convinced.
What do you think? Should clergy be supported or
paid? Should we all be multi-vocational? Should
churches develop multiple income streams? Finances
should not be the barrier to following God’s guidance,
but too often money becomes the default decisionmaker. That was not the case in the first century, and we
who serve God in the 21st century should not let old
financial models dominate our thinking about how to do
church in a new economy. Let me know what you think.

April 29, 2009 • 11:02 pm

China’s Dead Sea Scrolls:
An Ancient Case of
Contextual Christianity

Paul Pelliott, French sinologist, spent weeks reading
through ancient manuscripts in the Library Cave in
Dunhuang.
Contextualization is the buzzword in missional thinking
today, but it’s not a new concept. In 635 AD, Christianity
followed the Silk Road and entered China’s capital city
of Chang’an, now known as Xian. Aleben, a bishop from
Persia, led a contingent of two dozen monks on a 3,000
mile journey into the heart of China. The emperor of
China, Taizong, welcomed Aleben and his monks, and
the sacred scriptures Aleben carried.
The texts the emperor had translated into Chinese spoke
of a “Luminous Religion” and of a savior who would
free mankind. The emperor embraced this new religion,
commanded that monasteries and churches be built, and
encouraged all under his reign to adopt this new faith. A
12-foot-high stele — an engraved stone tablet — was
erected to commemorate the coming of the “Teaching of
Light” to the Middle Kingdom.
Unfortunately, subsequent emperors would purge
China of all outside influence, including religion, in
about 200 years, so the new beginning of Christianity in
China was snuffed out. Or so it seemed at the time.
In the late 1890s, another monk, a Taoist named Wang
Yuanlu, found the ruins of a Buddhist monastery at

Dunhuang, about 1,000-miles west of Xian. Among the
carved out caves where monks had lived, Wang
discovered a Library Cave with thousands of
manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Eventually,
Wang sold manuscripts to European explorers, who
discovered writings that came to be called The Jesus
Sutras.
Sutra is a Buddhist term for a teaching or saying, and
some of these were undoubtedly sayings preserved from
the work of Aleben and his band of Christian monks in
the 7th century AD. Selected sutras are contained in The
Lost Sutras of Jesus, and have fascinating parallels to the
New Testament.
Some passages read almost word-for-word like the
Sermon on the Mount:
“Look at the birds in the air. They don’t plant or
harvest, they have no barns or cellars. In the
wilderness the One Spirit provided for the
people and will also provide for you. You are
more important than the birds and should not
worry.”
In other passages, entirely new thoughts have a
distinctive Buddhist flavor while communicating
Christian ideas:
“All creatures seek the Higher Dharma
(teaching). They long for the Way of Peace and
Joy, which lies buried and cannot be seen.”
Still other sutras seem to reflect Biblical passages with a
new twist:
“If you listen to these sutras and take pleasure
in them, if you read them aloud and carry them
in your mind, you will plant strong roots for
many generations to come. Your father and
grandfathers, your mother and grandmothers,
who cherished these teachings and found joy in
them before you, have created a tradition you
are continuing.” (Compare to Deuteronomy 6)

These sayings, and others like them, may be the most
original example of contextualization of the Gospel in
the ancient church. If not the oldest example, it is among
the more fascinating. Not all the Christian sutras reflect
21st century orthodoxy, but they at least provide an
enlightening window into a world that was prescientific, but intellectually active. Taizong’s library was
reported to contain 200,000 volumes, and this before the
invention of the printing press, at least in Europe.
For more information on China’s equivalent of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, google Dunhuang, Nestorian scrolls,
Nestorian Christianity, or Nestorian stele. I discovered
this amazing bit of history reading The Lost History of
Christianity by Phillip Jenkins. I would highly
recommend both books if you’re interested in Christian
history. I’ll review Jenkins’ book later, but both of these
books will give you a new appreciation for the multiple
forms the Christian message and Christian churches
have taken in the past two millenia.

January 26, 2009 • 9:09 pm

Reggie McNeal:
Change the Church Scorecard

Reggie McNeal’s new book, Missional Renaissance, calls
for a change in what we count at church. I wrote about
counting people being the church in 2007, and that’s
exactly what McNeal advocates in his most recent book.
A former denominational executive and now a soughtafter missional church guru, McNeal challenges the
“baptisms, buildings, and budgets” standards. I asked
Reggie several questions about his book, and about the
role of small churches in this new church scorecard.
Here are his responses:
CW: In your book you call for “changing the scorecard”
for the things we measure in church. Do you see any
prospect for denominations changing the data they
require on annual reports? If so, do you have any
specific examples?
RMc: I am hopeful that denominations will come
around, but it usually takes a change in doing business
on the front lines to force that. That lag time is very
painful and will keep many denominations from
enjoying the association of many new missional leaders
who simply won’t participate in a system that is countervalue to what they are doing. I DO have a specific
example to offer as hope. In December I met with top
leaders (denominational execs and pastors) of the
Reformed Church in America in Grand Rapids as they
convened around this very issue. The RCA is the oldest
denomination in America but is willing to tackle this
problem. The key is that they are committed to it, so I
suspect they will get it done over the next couple of
years. They will have influence over other mainline
denominations at least. Perhaps even evangelical

denomination leaders will pay attention once the RCA
rolls it out.
CW: I write for small churches, which are often not
included as role models for others. Do you think that
small churches can be missional and serve as legitimate
missional models?
RMc: One of the things about the missional renaissance
is that it makes the old pecking order based on size of
attractional crowd really irrelevant to missional
effectiveness. I work with congregations from weekly
worship attendance of less than three dozen to churches
running over 10,000. The issue is not the size of the
crowd, but the impact on the community. “Small”
attendance congregations have been beaten up for
decades now in the old church growth scorecard.
Getting out of that game can let them be winners in a
missional measure. I think this is very hopeful for small
congregations who really don’t want to consume all the
energy to “grow” but to release their congregations to be
missionaries.

CW: You talk about the altruism economy. Are churches
behind the rest of society in giving for the betterment of
those in our society, and the society as a whole?
RMc: I really don’t know the answer to this. I’m more
concerned about going forward, since the altruism
economy is taking off. Will churches keep up? Just this
week I was eating in a restaurant. My server was a
believer who belonged to a local very thriving church in
one of our large cities. Her church is planning a $20
million dollar building campaign. She said, “it just
doesn’t seem right in these times. We should raise that
money to help people.” This is the sentiment that I think
church leaders had better pay attention to. Otherwise we
will continue to appear more interested in ourselves
than the communities we are called to serve and to bear
witness to.

McNeal identifies three “missional shifts” in his book:
•
•
•

The shift from internal to external focus for
churches.
The shift from program development to people
development.
The shift from church-based to Kingdom-based
leadership.

These shifts, of necessity, change the scorecard for
church leadership, according to McNeal. Here’s how he
says it in the book:
“The missional expression of the church will
require new metrics to measure its vitality. The
current scorecard for the North American
church is tied to the definitions of church as a
place and church as a vendor of religious goods
and services.” Missional Renaissance, p. 37-38
And to make his point that missional is the future of the
church, McNeal concludes his opening chapter with
these words:
“The missional renaissance reflects the church’s
response in a time of remarkable manifestation
of the kingdom. Those who miss it will find
themselves on the other side of a divide that
renders them irrelevant to the movement of God
in the world. Those who engage it will find
themselves at the intersection of God’s
redemptive mission and the world he loves so
much he was willing to die for it.” Missional
Renaissance, p. 17
If nothing else, maybe small churches will be able to
model missional engagement measured by new metrics.
That in itself would be a welcome shift for missional
churches of all sizes.

January 5, 2009 • 11:23 pm

Sustainable spiritual collectives

Steve Taylor* started an interesting conversation about a
sustainable spiritual collective. He even renamed his
blog sustain:if:able kiwi. Fortunately he’s still at the
same url, so you can find Steve here under his new nom
de plume. But back to my point.
Steve tackles the missional vs attractional argument in a
new way — he offers a new vision, a third choice —
sustainable. He borrows from sustainable agricultural
practices and uses those to inform sustainable spiritual
collectives (communities) in new ways:
•

Sustainable communities aren’t about coming to
church, but participants may still gather for
support, encouragement and resourcing.

•

Sustainable communities might not even look
new, but they are informed by a new
understanding of God’s mission.

•

Sustainable communities could be missional
groups, or traditional churches, or other forms
that give expression both to our need and God’s
mission.

I like what Steve says as he sums up his concept:
In other words …
Sustainable spirituality says “you don’t need to be here”,
but some of us will be here, to connect and resource and
sustain. Sustainable spirituality will celebrate church as
ordinary, singing as everyday and faith as regular. It
knows that these situations are findable, and can be

hospitable, and become agents of healing. Sustainable
spirituality will work hard at creating constant and
multiple pathways by which the “out there” is
connected and resourced.
Celtic abbeys were very much like this, I suspect. A core
group of monks or nuns (or both) acted as spiritual
directors for an entire community of passersby, new
believers, needy travelers, hurting pilgrims, and
struggling commoners. This community was
sustainable, not because they all gathered at the same
time once a week, but because their lives revolved
around the spiritual center of Christ.
Some attended to worship more than others. Some
worked in the fields more than others. Some were busy
with the economics — the householding — more than
others. But all moved in this glorious dance of
interdependence on each other and God, sustained by
God’s grace and sustaining the kingdom outpost they
called the church.
I like Steve’s sustainable spiritual collectives. Not sure if
the term will move into popular usage, however. Just
imagine your business card –
Chuck Warnock, Pastor
Chatham Baptist Sustainable Spiritual Collective

But then, maybe an awkward name like that just might
start some conversations all by itself.

*Steve Taylor pastors Opawa Baptist Church in New
Zealand, and is author of The Out-of-Bounds Church.

December 19, 2008 • 4:45 pm

The Economic Realities
of Church Planting

I can’t get Julie Clawson’s words out of my head –
We couldn’t attract enough people willing to
give enough money to pay our salary and so the
church failed.
Julie was responding to Dan Kimball’s critique of
missional churches as opposed to attractional churches.
Julie was stating a “crass” (her word) reality of church
planting life — some new church experiments fail. Or at
least they fail to be self-supporting enough to sustain the
attention of a staff.
Julie explains that they succeeded in many other ways –
Our church became family to each other –
opening our homes (literally) and seriously
caring for each other and for our community.
Throwing parties for the “poor” and the
mentally disabled, working to improve the local
environment, helping the struggling get back on
their feet.
I like Julie’s apologetic for the missional community and
encourage you to read her entire post. I identify with
Julie because Debbie and I started a church about 20years ago, and it was hard. Ours, however, is a
thriving, growing congregation today. What’s the
difference? What do aspiring church planters need to
think about before taking the big leap? Here’s what I’ve
come up with:

•

Determine your church model. Some church
planting models are complex and elaborate —
launch teams, property acquisition, extensive
PR, and paid staff. Others are simple — house
churches are a good example. If your church
planting vision is more complex, then keep
reading.

•

Realize church plants need money. How much
money your church plant needs is determined
by your overhead (rent, materials, staff,
programs, etc). House churches minimize the
overhead, sometimes completely, giving all their
contributions to charity. More typical church
plants may have a launch team, months of
preparation, and other start-up costs. Good
budget planning is part of good stewardship.

•

Project your income. Potential income streams
are only limited by your creativity. Some
church starts open as businesses, planning that
sales of coffee or art or books will pay much of
the overhead. Income can also flow from
outside donors, grants for programs, attendee
contributions, and denominational support.
Even our 151-year old church has a mix of
income from offerings, investments, bequests,
and special donations. Bottom line: If you can’t
figure out where your money is coming from,
you’ve got a problem. It’s not enough to hope it
will all work out.

•

Evaluate your community giving. In 2007
Intuit released a charitable contribution report
listing the top 10 most generous and stingiest
communities. Might help to know where your
community ranks in overall charitable giving.

•

Understand the implications of your mission.
Julie said they were engaged in “Throwing
parties for the “poor” and the mentally disabled,
working to improve the local environment,
helping the struggling get back on their feet.” I

don’t know their entire mission, but this one will
not pay for itself. If you know that going in, you
can prepare to have income in place to pay for
these ministries and more. ”Crass,” as Julie
says? Yes, but reality, too.
•

Monitor and adjust as you go. We’re doing that
at our church this year. New churches are even
more economically fragile than established ones
so close financial oversight is critical. If you’re
not a numbers person (I’m not) find someone
who is. You’ll be glad you did.

Of course, what I’m leaving out here is the Godmoment. The economic miracle, the unforeseen gift, the
generous benefactor, the Powerball payoff. Okay,
maybe not the Powerball, but all the others. However,
when the financial miracle happens, you’ll be glad you
did all this other stuff first.
No church experiment is a failure. All attempts at
announcing the Kingdom are commendable. Some are
just more sustainable than others.

December 16, 2008 • 8:04 pm

Becoming a fan of Jesus

I’m starting to get into Facebook. Debbie and I have
connected with old friends, our own family, former
church members, and lots of new “friends” that we
would not have met anywhere else.
As experienced Facebookers know, not only can you
find friends online, but you can join causes, too. I’ve
joined a few causes, let a few other opportunities slide,
and read them all with interest. Some causes are being
touted by professionals. I won’t name names, but
they’re probably your “friend,” too. That’s the
downside of social media — insincere friends trying to
get you to do something that benefits them. Actually,
that happens in real life to, so maybe this is not so
virtual after all.
Another way to identify with your new online Facebook
friends is to become a fan of someone or something
they’re a fan of, too. Which got me to thinking about the
whole missional vs. attractional church debate. Dan
Kimball stirred the pot a little with his shot at missional
churches that don’t grow. Julie Clawson fired back with
her take on the missional scene.
But, what’s wrong with attracting people? Jesus did it.
Granted the thousands abandoned him in the end, but
they still got fed, healed, encouraged, taught, and loved.
Maybe some of them got it later. We don’t know. But,
Jesus is the most missional guy I know, and he wasn’t
offended when big crowds flocked to him. Of course, he
recognized that most of them didn’t get it, but he still
did what he could with them.

While there is a big difference in becoming a “fan” of
Jesus Facebook-style, and becoming a disciple of Jesus
New Testament-style, it’s not a bad thing for people to
be drawn to Jesus and his church, even out of curiosity,
even for entertainment.
The challenge is leading fans to become friends of Jesus,
real friends. After all, Jesus said to those following him,
“You are my friends if you do what I command.”
Maybe starting as a fan can lead to something more.
What do you think?

August 27, 2008 • 10:40 pm

A must read:
The New Conspirators by Tom Sine

Tom Sine’s latest book, The New Conspirators, celebrates
the increasing diversity in the church. Sine’s book
continues the theme of his classic book, The Mustard
Seed Conspiracy, published in 1981. Sine was a ‘redletter Christian’ before the official group existed, and in
this hopeful volume he gives us examples across the
spectrum of the 21st century church.
Divided into five “conversations” Sine takes his readers
on a tour of real places where real people are living out
the gospel as they understand it in communities and
congregations around the world. In Conversation One,
Sine introduces the unfamiliar to the four streams of the
postmodern church — emerging, missional, mosaic, and
monastic. Sine celebrates the gifts each brings to the
body of Christ, giving an even-handed, generous
perspective on each.
In Conversation Two, we are reminded of our global
culture from massive consumerism to militant terrorism.
This is the world in which we all live, and Sine reminds
us that there are those who covet our American
materialism, and those who despise it. But, despite the
negatives of globalization, Sine sees positive things in
our shrinking planet, such as the connection young
people around the world are making with each other,
transcending local cultures.
In Conversation Three, we are encouraged to take the
future of God seriously. Sine isn’t talking about “going
to heaven when you die” either. After several
illustrations of kingdom thinking and acting, Sine
weaves a lyrical scene, his take on Isaiah 25 and

Revelation 21, where “God’s presence is palpable and
we sense his generous welcome.”
Conversation Four reminds readers to take “turbulent
times seriously.” Sine pulls takes us below decks in his
version of humanity’s “Ship of Fools” examining the
stark contrasts between the fabulously rich, the
increasingly shrinking middle-class, and the world’s
abject poor.
In Conversation Five, we are encouraged to “take our
imaginations seriously.” Sine paints new pictures of
“whole-life” stewardship, community, and mission
celebrating those on the entrepreneurial edge. He states,
“we need musicians, poets and artists to create new
forms of worship, in which we celebrate coming home
as a great resurrected community to a world where the
broken are made whole, justice comes for the poor and
shalom to the nations.”
If you want a tour of where church is headed in the 21st
century, read ‘The New Conspirators.’ If you despair of
the future of the church, let Tom Sine fill you with the
same joy he shares over the growth of these mustard
seeds of the kingdom. If you’re looking for something to
give fresh direction to your own life, and form it in new
ways, grab a copy of Sine’s book and join ‘The New
Conspirators’ yourself. As Shane Claiborne says, “This
book is a gift to the church, and to the world.”

July 29, 2008 • 9:25 pm

How churches might face
the coming crises

(A couple of days ago I wrote about several converging
crises — energy, economy, and environment. Since then
the price of gas has gone down! Proof that I was wrong.
Not! As a nation we are so shell-shocked by the energy
crisis that we think a 10-cent reduction in the price of gas
is a big break, forgetting that less than a year ago we
were paying under $3 a gallon. Anyway, back to our
original program.)
I see churches adapting to these three interrelated crises
— energy, economy, and environment — in several
ways:
•

Redefinition of “church.” Church will no
longer be the place we go, church will be the
people we share faith with. Churches will still
meet together for worship at a central time and
location, but that will become secondary to the
ministry performed during the week. Church
buildings will become the resource hub in
community ministry, like the old Celtic
Christian abbeys. Church impact will replace
church attendance as the new metric.

•

Restructuring of church operations. Due to the
high cost of fuel and a struggling economy,
churches will become smaller, more agile, and
less expensive to operate than in the past.
Churches will need to provide direct relief to
individuals and families with meal programs,
shelters, clothing, job training, and more. In the
not-distant-future, we will live in a world where
government is increasingly unable to fund and

provide those services. Church buildings will
become increasingly more expensive to
maintain, and churches with unused weekday
space will consider partnerships with
businesses, other ministries, and helping
agencies. Or churches will sell their
conventional buildings and reestablish in
storefronts that operate as retail businesses 6
days a week, and gathering places on Sunday
(or Thursday or whenever). Churches will focus
outwardly on their “parish” more than inwardly
on their members. Church staff will become
more community-focused rather than churchprogram focused, and become team leaders in
new missional ventures.
•

Repackaging of “sermons” and Christian
education. With fewer people “attending”
church, fewer will also attend Christian
education classes. Churches will deliver
Christian education content via mobile devices.
Short video clips accessible from iPhones (and
other smart devices) will be the primary content
carriers for church and culture. Church
“members” (if that quaint term actually
survives) will still gather, but more for monthly
celebrations, fellowship, and sharing than
weekly meetings, worship, or learning. Of
course, there may be several monthly
celebrations geared to different lifestyles (tribes),
schedules, and preferences. Again, the abbey
concept of the church as hub with many smaller
groups revolving around the resource center.

•

Refocus from institution to inspiration. Okay,
so I went for the easy alliteration there. Restated,
less emphasis on the “church” and more on how
the church enables its adherents to live their
faith. Declining church attendance is not a crisis
of faith, it’s a crisis of delivery. We can bemoan
the fact that fewer people come to church, but
ballgames are not suffering from declining
attendance. People go to what they want to go
to. Church ministry has to focus on engaging

people in meaningful ways that enable their
spiritual journeys. In a world in crisis, people
are looking for something to believe in as
institution after institution crumbles. If banks,
businesses, and whole countries fail, where can
we put our trust? Church should have the
answer 24/7, delivered like everything else is
delivered now â&#x20AC;&#x201D; when people want it, at their
convenience, and in a way that resonates with
them.
None of the things I have suggested here are new. But,
the thing that makes them more viable now is the
convergence of all three crises at one time. But, letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hope
for the best and assume that gas goes back to no more
than $2 per gallon, the planet cools off, energy is
abundant, and the economy flourishes. All the
possibilities I suggest above are still viable strategies that
may be more in keeping with New Testament values
than our 20th century consumerist approach.
What do you think?

April 7, 2008 • 10:58 pm

Closed door, open window
N.T. Wright teaches Missional Ecclesiology in 2009 at
Fuller. I forgot exactly where I heard that saying —
When God closes a door, He opens a window — but as
corny as it sounds, it’s true.
Last year, I dropped out of the “Missional Leadership”
Doctor of Ministry program track at Fuller. The
program is great, but the process we were to lead our
church through was not working at our church for
reasons that are unimportant here. But, my point is,
after spending a lot of time, study, and money, I decided
it would be in the best interest of the church for me to
discontinue that line of study. Fuller was very
accommodating, and I did not lose any credits in the
transition, but it was still a disappointment to not be
part of that cohort.
I am halfway through the DMin program, so I need two
more seminars to finish. As I looked at other course
offerings, none of the courses Fuller was offering
seemed to be a good fit for me. A couple of weeks ago,
Fuller posted a new course — Missional Ecclesiology.
That’s a good fit for me with my previous missional
leadership courses.
“But, wait, there’s more,” as they say on TV!
The course is to be taught by N. T. Wright, who is one of
my favorite authors and theologians. And, I’m in! This
is The N.T. Wright who is the Bishop of Durham, the
author of a new book, Surprised by Hope, and of the
magnum opus, The Resurrection of the Son of God, plus
about 4 dozen other books. The course is offered Feb
23-27, 2009 at Fuller, which is also perfect timing. So, as
they also say, “God is good…all the time!”

March 12, 2008 • 1:14 pm

The “No Adjective” Church

the dictionary ad·jec·tive / æd
kt v/
Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled
Pronunciation[aj-ik-tiv] 1. Any member of a
class of words…functioning as modifiers of
nouns, as good, wise, perfect.
Have you noticed we are now in the age of the
“adjective” church? Modifiers like missional or
purpose-driven or seeker-sensitive or externally-focused
or a dozen others precede the word “church” to define a
particular church’s philosophy. I guess this isn’t
anything new because the old modifiers were
denominational names like Baptist, Methodist,
Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and so on. But, now we have
both, and it’s getting to be a bit cluttered.
What happened to the word “church” along the way?
How did “church” lose its meaning as a place where the
least, the last, and the lost could find hope, healing, and
hospitality? Why do we need modifiers to distinguish
one church from another. Are “purpose-driven”
churches distinguished from those that have no
purpose? Are “seeker-sensitive” churches truer
churches than those that don’t use that modifier?
“Church” has become so meaningless a term now, that
we expect the adjectives that precede it to define what a
particular church does. But, in the Book of Acts, they
didn’t need adjectives. Church was a community, a
refuge, a place of healing, a gathering of God’s people,
open to others, driven by fellowship and mission,
obedient to God, gathered for worship, inclusive of slave
and free, innovative, sharing, caring, loving, powerful,
prayerful, worshiping, gifted — an expression of the
kingdom coming in the world now.

Wouldn’t it be great if the word “church” again meant
all those things? Without the adjectives. Church. Why
doesn’t that say it all?

March 10, 2008 • 9:27 pm

In the church as abbey:
Why rituals are important

In the Celtic Christian abbey, the compound was open to
all who needed food, lodging, or care. As the monks’
pagan neighbors entered the abbey, they were greeted
with many familiar sights — monks or nuns preparing
meals in the kitchen, stacking wood for the fire, copying
manuscripts, or working in the fields. But, they also
encountered the unfamiliar — strange rituals like
making the sign of the cross, breaking bread and sharing
a common cup, kneeling, bowing, and prostrating
oneself.
Learning How to Be A Christian
These were the rituals of Christianity, practiced by
monks and nuns in the abbey, and taught to their pagan
neighbors who wished to become Christians. Pagans
literally learned how Christians acted by seeing,
practicing, and repeating these strange behaviors. These
behaviors became so ingrained in the life of the convert
that they became part of his or her daily routine.
When an Irish convert needed courage, instead of an
incantation from their druid past, they prayed a prayer
to Christ. The famous breastplate of St. Patrick is the
most outstanding example of this type of praying. The
Carmina Gaedelica is a collection of everyday prayers
from Celtic life — prayers for starting the fire, washing
one’s face, sweeping the house, and working at the
loom.
Other rituals, such as making the sign of the cross,
became automatic responses to the happenstances of

primitive life. Celtic Christians learned through words,
patterns, and symbols what made them distinct from
their pagan Druid kinsmen in actions and belief.
Loss of Rituals in the 20th Century Church
Fast-forward to the 20th century. New church models
suggested that people came to Christ most easily if we
removed “religious” symbols. This strategy worked well
to attract new people to these churches without symbol,
but unlike the Celtic abbeys, some of these churches
never introduced new Christians to the actions,
behaviors and symbols that signify the Christian faith.
Many church buildings were constructed without
baptistries or baptismal fonts because baptism was
practiced in swimming pools and lakeshores.
Communion was not observed in the largest worship
services of many churches, or it was relegated to a
special service outside the regular pattern of worship.
All of this was done because it was thought that symbols
and rituals obscure the gospel message. But just the
opposite is true.
The Importance of Ritual
Rituals, practices, and symbols are important because
they give us external behaviors to express internal
commitments. We learn how to “act like a Christian” by
doing the things Christians do. So, new converts
participate in baptism, receive communion, and are
catechized as part of learning how we act in this strange
new community called the church.
Without ritual, patterns, and symbols our practice of the
Christian faith is stripped of actions that cause us to
remember and draw strength from our interior faith.
Rituals give us behaviors, individually and corporately,
that reinforce our common beliefs. The missional
congregation particularly seeks to be distinctly Christian
in its behaviors, symbols, and practices — whether
ancient or contemporary — because that is part of what
makes us a contrast society.

March 3, 2008 • 9:28 pm

The church as abbey

Last year, several of us in the Fuller DMin Missional
Leadership program had dinner with Alan Roxburgh
one evening. Alan is one of the DMin adjunct
professors, and author of The Sky Is Falling, co-author of
The Missional Leader, and contributor to Missional
Church, edited by Darrell Guder, the book that started
this whole missional conversation.
Since reading about the early Celtic Christians, I have
had the idea that a local church could function like the
old Celtic abbey. So, I asked Alan about this concept of
church as abbey at dinner.
Alan mentions in his book, The Missional Leader, that
we need a new concept of church leadership in a
reimagining of the eccleisal role of abbott or abbess. My
thinking fits Alan’s at this point — to have an abbott or
abbess, you must also have an abbey which would be
the local church. Alan has visited the Northumbria
Community, an early Celtic Christian region, now home
to a modern-day neomonastic movement.
Roots In Celtic Christian Communities
In Celtic Christian life, the monastic group established
their community near a town or well-traveled
crossroads. Unlike later monastic communities, the
Celtic Christian communities were not cloistered — they
were open to passers-by, neighbors, and townspeople.
When disputes arose, the village knew that refuge and
peace could be found inside the walls of the Celtic
Christian compound. As these communities of Christ
grew, they became the centers of the community.

The abbeys were resources for worship, commerce, craft
and trade, advice, hospitality, evangelism, catechesis,
healing, care, and a host of other needs and ministries.
The surrounding pagan community learned that the
abbey was a place where they could go for help, food,
shelter, and guidance. The concept, according to George
Hunter’s Celtic Way of Evangelism, was that “belonging
comes before believing.” The monks were quick to
welcome the stranger, inquirer, refugee, and others into
their midst.
The Church-As-Abbey Reimagined For Today
The modern day church-as-abbey would function much
the same way. Worship, prayers, instruction, meals, and
hospitality would be practiced there. But also the
church would be the “hub” in the “wheel of ministry.”
Spokes in the wheel could be house churches, small
groups, ministry and social action groups, alternative
worship experiences, off-campus locations, and off-site
ministries. All of these would relate to the church-asabbey as the central resource for coordination, planning,
prayer, and support.
Small groups would be connected to the abbey through
the use of in-house instructional materials available by
video and podcast. Small group leaders would be
facilitators using the resources from the abbey thereby
preserving the clarity and consistency in teaching.
Small groups of all functions would worship at the
church-as-abbey at least monthly, reporting to the abbey
on a regular basis. Small group leaders would be held
accountable for ministry design, content, and outcomes.
Small churches could act as abbeys, too, without buying
additional land, building additional buildings, or hiring
additional staff. The key would be creating groups
external to the abbey, but related to the abbey to
maintain the practice of the community.
The abbey would adopt a “rule of life” — a set of
practices which its members followed, thus identifying

them with the abbey’s particular philosophy and calling.
This rule, patterned after the Rule of St. Benedict, would
at a minimum include regular prayer, Bible reading,
worship, and service to others. Specifics would be
developed by each abbey in conversation with leaders
and members of the community.
The church-as-abbey solves many of the problems of
engaging the area surrounding a church. Most ministry
happens outside the church, with the church as resource.
Individuals are not first invited to “church,” but are
invited, for example, to join a social action group that
feeds the homeless each Tuesday night. Churches need
to get past the idea that only our church members can be
involved in ministry projects. Participants relate to the
church as abbey — as resource — to their ministry long
before they feel any need to join the abbey.
Only as the church moves out into the world to do the
work of Christ in the way of Jesus, will we again find the
vitality which the Christian community has lost to
institutionalism. The church as abbey has great
potential for each church, regardless of size, to engage
and befriend its ministry area — its geographical
“parish.” More work needs to be done on this concept,
but I am convinced it holds great promise for the future
of the church.

February 6, 2008 • 3:03 pm

5 Ways Church Models
Can Be Helpful

A “church model.” Not the kind I’m talking about.
Mea culpa. That’s Latin for “I pulled the trigger on my
mouth before it cleared my holster, and I shot myself in
the foot.” Or something like that. Now that I have
calmed down over the McChurch post at Out of Ur, let
me do some backpedaling. I now understand –
•

Eddie Johnson described his church using the
analogy of a franchise to point out the very
positive aspects of the North Point strategic
partnerships.

•

The franchise description was Eddie’s, not
Andy’s, according to Eddie himself.

•

Eddie is a really nice guy who responds with
grace and good humor. Unlike some folks who
have called him the ‘anti-christ.’ (And I thought
I was over the top!)

Which brings me to a reasoned discussion of the whole
business of “church models.” Eddie’s right — we all use
church models to describe the approach we are taking in
our particular ministry situation. Reference to church
models has become a kind of ecclesial short-hand,
helping others know who we are and what we do.
Church models include purpose-driven (Saddleback),
seeker (Willow Creek), video (North Point, Life Church),
externally-focused, servant evangelistic, missional,
emerging, denominational, and so on.

With that in mind, here are 5 ways church models can be
helpful:
•

Identity. Denominations served the purpose of
identifying a church in the 20th century. In the
21st century, affiliations are more in vogue.
Many churches advertise that they are Purposedriven, or seeker-friendly, or video-oriented to
identify themselves to their communities.

•

Processes. Eddie calls this systems, but however
you say it, it’s how you do things. Churches that
affiliate with a particular model do things
consistent with that model. The use of proven
methodologies helps jump start many church
planting or church revitalization efforts.

•

Focus. As Eddie said, they don’t offer the church
program buffet. They know what they do, and
they don’t get distracted by other “good”– but
off-message — opportunities.

•

Support. Most church models originated
because someone had done it at least once. I like
the Celtic Christian abbey model, and that was
done over 1,000 years ago. Others are more
current and provide literature, promotional
materials, training events, and programs with
support on-line or on the phone.

•

Metrics. Church models usually have
measurements that are important to that model
such as baptisms, new members, attendance, or
participation in small groups. Many have
benchmarks that incorporate several measures
of mission success. Each model is looking either
for growth, development, progress, maturity
(Willow’s study), or some other attribute that is
measurable.

Church models are helpful in all the ways I’ve
mentioned and more. But, church models are just that —
models. Our daughter and her husband own a franchise
restaurant, and the reality and the model can be vastly

different. Models provide a good framework for us to
shape ministry around, but I have to constantly remind
myself that â&#x20AC;&#x153;God gives the increase.â&#x20AC;? However you
measure it.
What do you think?

January 29, 2008 • 9:45 pm

Ten marks of the church-as-abbey

Models for how we should do church are not in short
supply. Seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven, emerging,
missional, traditional, liturgical, ancient-future, and the
like all have their merits. I am really interested in the
church-as-abbey concept myself. I have read extensively
about the early Celtic Christian church and find it
intriguing and encouraging. In that research I identified
10 characteristics of the church-as-abbey, as I call it, or
abbey church, for short. Here are the essential
characteristics, or marks, of what I mean when I use the
church-as-abbey model:
•

Worship. The church-as-abbey has at its heart
the practice of worship. But worship that is
public, powerful, and brings one into the
presence of God through some type of
intentional liturgy, whether formal or not. But
not every parishioner of the abbey will attend
every service. The idea is not to get everyone to
one service, but to provide opportunities for
worship that abbey adherents can participate in
regularly, if not weekly.

•

Arts. The church-as-abbey celebrates creativity
as a gift from a creative God. The arts reflect our
connection to creation and God’s creative
power. The arts are expression, statement,
witness, and beauty for a world that needs all of
those things.

•

Hospitality. The Celtic abbey was open to all
who needed its hospitality and help. Monks,
even those fasting, would interrupt their
discipline to greet and welcome those who came
into the abbey’s confines. Welcoming the

stranger is a vital part of the abbey’s ministry.
•

Economics. The abbeys were self-supporting,
engaged in cultivating fields, raising livestock,
operating public markets, and giving
employment opportunities to the community. I
read about a church the other day that also
operates a farmers’ market, and has been doing
so for years. I am exploring the agrarian
movement, particularly as it attracts followers of
Christ. More on that later.

•

Learning and scholarship. The Celtic
monasteries became the centers of learning,
preservation of sacred and literary manuscripts,
and schools of instruction. The amazing Book of
Kells is the prime example. See How the Irish
Saved Civilization for other examples.

•

Catechesis and spiritual direction. For new
converts, the abbey provided initial instruction.
For more mature converts, the abbott or abbess
provided spiritual direction and aided in
spiritual formation.

•

Rule of life in community. The Rule of St.
Benedict is the most famous of these “rules of
life” but there were many others that defined
the monastic community’s social and spiritual
interaction.

•

Ministry to the marginalized. The poor,
hungry, disenfranchised, sick, old, and disabled
found help of various kinds within the abbey’s
compound.

•

Peace and justice. St. Patrick was the first
person in recorded history to speak out against
the Irish slave trade. Patrick’s appeals
eventually resulted in the end of the Irish slave
trade, of which Patrick himself had been a
victim. Patrick also prevailed upon the Irish
kings and warlords to live in peace with one
another, as much as they were able. The abbey

bears that same responsibility today.
•

External missions. Celtic priests, including
some of the well-known figures such as
Columba, went on extended “missions” to areas
removed from the abbey. In a reimagination of
this practice, the missional church-as-abbey
establishes external groups but groups with ties
to the abbey church. This is the area with which
I am struggling now, but I believe it is a core
part of the abbey concept. These groups are not
“missions” in the sense of international
missions, but rather are groups that are
“distant” from the abbey either in travel,
culture, or status, but that have a connection to
the abbey as “mother church.”

But, you say, “Where is evangelism, ministry, and
education — those staples of the church as we know it
today?” The 10 marks of the abbey church above
contain evangelism, ministry, and education, but from a
new perspective. George Hunter, in his intriguing book,
The Celtic Way of Evangelism, says that in the Celtic
Christian abbey “belonging” came before “believing.”
Prospective converts were incorporated into the
community before they became believers in Christ. Not
a bad model for us today, which is one of the main
reasons I like the abbey approach.
What do you think?

December 12, 2007 • 4:18 pm

Our Church
I was called to Chatham to revitalize Chatham Baptist
Church, a wonderful 150-year old congregation which
had been declining for several years.
Our town of Chatham, VA has 1300 residents, and is the
county seat for Pittsylvania County located in
“Southside” Virginia. Chatham is home to Hargrave
Military Academy, which our church helped found; and,
Chatham Hall, an Episcopal prep school for girls. Our
entire community is undergoing tremendous social and
economic change due to the loss of tobacco, textile, and
furniture manufacturing. Individuals, organizations, and
institutions have come together to reimagine this area
and our church is part of that process. And, in the midst
of all that, we still do many of the things that traditional
Virginia Baptist churches do. So, we’re walking a fine
line between reinventing ourselves, and honoring the
traditions that are valuable to our members and
community.
Our Missional Approach to Ministry
Here are some of the things we have done here since
2004:
•

•

•

Started a Boys and Girls Club, an after-school
program targeting underserved kids. About 80
kids attend each day, and they do homework,
get snacks, play games, learn life skills, and have
access to a computer lab.
Founded a community music school for kids
under the name, Chatham Arts. About 30children take violin, cello, piano, guitar, and
voice lessons at our church each week. The goal
is to form a community youth orchestra. The
music school is a partnership with Virginia Tech
and the Renaissance Music Academy of
Blacksburg, VA. See photos here.
Collaborated with artists and educators in our
community to offer Soundcheck, a monthly teen
open mic night. On the last Friday night of each

•

•
•

•

•

month, about 80-teens gather in our church
basement, which gets transformed into a “coffee
house” for the evening. Outreach magazine did
a feature on us in the Nov/Dec 2006 issue,
Partnering For Art’s Sake.
I pulled together a coalition of area pastors to
form Chatham Cares, a non-profit corporation. I
serve as president and our mission is to design,
build, and operate a community center, for
which we have received a $3-million grant. Our
county does not have a recreation program or
community center, so we’re excited about this
project. Update: On May 19, 2008, The
Community Center at Chatham opened to rave
reviews.
We revamped our community VBS in 2005,
increasing attendance from 60 to over 180 each
night. You can see photos here.
In conjunction with the Chatham Arts
Community Music School, we host classical
music concerts in our sanctuary featuring
touring performers and groups, such as The Van
Brugh quartet, the Irish Broadcasting
Company’s resident string quartet. These
concerts are funded by ticket sales, local
support, and grants from the National
Endowment of the Arts.
On January 20, 2008, we hosted the first
community interracial celebration of Dr. Martin
Luther King’s life and legacy at our church. The
Danville, VA newspaper covered the story here.
We also do some seasonal stuff like our parking
lot movies, Sundown Cinema; and, Family Skate
Nights.

Articles, Video About Us in the Media
•
•
•

Our local paper, The Star-Tribune, has run
several articles about our ministry, and you can
access those articles here.
The Danville, Virginia daily newspaper, The
Register and Bee, ran this story, Community
Center Coming To Chatham last July.
The Religious Herald, Virginia Baptist’s state
paper, ran a frontpage story about our church

•
•

written by editor Jim White titled, Small Church,
Big Impact.
Outreach magazine featured our arts outreach in
the Nov/Dec 2006 issue, in an article written by
Alicia Kaszuk, Partnering for Art’s Sake.
Chatham Cares articles and a video clip from
WSET-TV in Lynchburg appear here.

Measuring Our Missional Impact
We recognize that not everyone who participates in our
community ministries will attend our church. While
some do attend, and we continue to reach out to others,
missional ministry is most accurately reflected in
participation in each ministry. Here are some numbers
of how we’re impacting our community. We are now
reaching –
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

180-kids, 5-18 years, who are members of the
Boys and Girls Club;
80+ kids who attend the club each weekday;
30-children and teens who take music lessons
each week at our community music school;
70-to-100 families per week who are connected
with these 2 programs;
60-80 teens who show up for Soundcheck each
month;
20-30 senior adults from our community come to
our monthly Adult Fellowship luncheon;
50-150 people attend our classical music concerts
and music school student performances;
25 senior adults participate in our monthly bus
day-trips;
our two worship services reach 100 per week;
about 50-60 people attend our Sundown
Cinemas during warm weather;
70 people attended our Family Skate Nights;
65 members of our church participate in Deacon
Team Ministry, a gifts-based ministry to our
membership and community.

For the future, we’re exploring other ministries such as a
“soup kitchen,” developing visual arts programs for
kids, and a bunch of other courses and programs that

will help revitalize not only our church, but also our
community.
I hope all this gives you some idea of what we are doing
in our small congregation and why we are doing it. Stop
in often, because things change quickly in our small
town!

About the author
Chuck Warnock is pastor of
the Chatham Baptist Church in
Chatham, Va. He has pastored
churches in Georgia, North
Carolina, and Tennessee. He is
the creator and regular
contributor to the web log
Confessions of a Small Church
Pastor.

About the publisher
First Inning Press publishes ebooks and other imprints
on a variety of topics including faith and spirituality,
journalism, young adult writing, and environmental and
agricultural issues â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and just about anything else weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re
interest in.
http://firstinningpress.com